http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: RADHA KISHUN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       28/02/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This is  an astonishing  and more  shocking  case.  The petitioner who  was, admittedly,  to retire  on May 31, 1991 remained in  office till  May 31,  1994 as  if he was not to retire from service, enjoying all the benefit of service.      This special  leave petition  arises from  the order of the Central  Administrative Tribunal,  Patna Bench,  made on November 26,  1996 in  OA No.  652/95.  The  petitioner  has joined  the   service  in  Tele  Communications  Department. Admittedly, his  date of birth is May 13, 1933. On attaining the age of superannuation, he was to retire on May 31, 1991. Instead, he  remained in  service till  May 31,  1994.  When action was  taken to recover the amounts paid to him for the period beyond  the date  he was to retire viz., May 31, 1991 and to  which he  was not  entitled,  he  filed  OA  in  the Tribunal and the same has been dismissed. Thus, this special leave petition.      The learned  counsel for  the petitioner  contends that since the  petitioner has  worked during  the period,  he is entitled to  the payment  of the  pay  and  allowances  from 1.6.1991 to  26.6.1994 and  that the is also entitled to the payment   of   Provisional   Pension,   Death-cum-retirement gratuity, leave  encashment commutation  of pension  amount, GPF money and the amount deposit under CGHS on the plea that he retired  from service  on May  31, 1994. We are aghast to notice the  boldness  with  which  it  is  claimed  that  he entitled to  all the benefits with effect from the abovesaid date when  admittedly he  was to  retire on May 31, 1991. It would be an obvious case of absolute irresponsibility on the part of  the officer  concerned in  the Establishment in the concerned section  for not  taking any  action to  have  the petitioner   retired   from   service   on   his   attaining superannuation. It is true that the petitioner worked during that period, but when he is not to continue to be in service as per  law, he  has no right to claim the salary etc. It is not the  case  that    he  was  re-employed  in  the  public interest,  after   attaining  superannuation.   Under  these circumstances, we  do not  find any illegality in the action taken by the authorities in refusing to grant the benefits.      It is  then contended  that the  petitioner would  have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

conveniently secured gainful employment elsewhere and having worked, he  cannot be  denied of  the legitimate  salary  to which he  is entitled  to . Though the argument is alluring, we cannot  accept the  contention and give legitimacy to the illegal action  taken by  the authorities. If the contention is given  acceptance, it would be field day for manipulation with impugnity  and one would get away on the plea of equity and misplaced  sympathy. It  cannot and  should not be given countenance.      Under those circumstances, we dismiss the petition with a direction  to the  Government of India to take appropriate disciplinary action  against all  the persons  concerned for their deliberate  dereliction of  duty in  not ensuring  the petitioner’s  retirement   on  his   attaining  the  age  of superannuation.      The Ragistry  is directed  to communicate this order to the Secretary , Telecommunications, Government of India. The Secretary is  directed to  ensure immediate  action  in  the matter and  submit the compliance report to the Registrar of this Court  within three months from the date of the receipt of this order.